Perhaps the most galling part of this is Bondi’s defense of her defense of Florida’s marriage ban by saying she was just doing what 69% of the voters wanted.
Someone in her position sometimes has to make decisions. And as Utah’s Lieutenant Governor has just shown, sometimes it’s okay for someone in a political position to admit they’ve made a mistake.
From what I’ve heard, this champion of family values is now working on marriage #3.
Funny how the States Rights-ers always want to remove civil rights for their State, and never use that power protect citizens.
LOVE LOVE LOVE how Anderson handled Bondi!!! BRAVOOOOOO
It’s always the ones that have neglected one of the bigger rules of the Bible (like the 10 Commandments) in favor of lecturing the remainder of the country about one of the rule codicils (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).
Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone.
love it. she’s using “the will of the voters” and “it’s my job as AG whether i like it or not” to defend her bigotry like some people use the bible for it. “it’s not me, it’s the bible!”
Small point, but as a nurse’s kid I feel obliged to make it every time this comes up: anyone can visit you in the hospital at pretty much any time.
They don’t care who visits you. They don’t care how long you stay. They’ll usually bring in a cot if you want to sleep there. So whenever you hear, “sorry, it’s family only,” or, “visiting hours are over,” it’s because they are invoking a time-honored way to get rowdy, loud, or disruptive people to leave.
There are plenty of rights rolled up in marriage to be worth fighting for, but “imagine not being able to visit your loved on in the hospital” is a ridiculous appeal.
No, they use that power to only protect the ‘right’ citizens.
Which shows why the Feds have to come in to make sure everyone gets the same rights.
If you’re critically injured, in a coma, and didn’t sign an ironclad medical power of attorney prior to being injured, you’re at the good graces of the hospital staff and not someone who cares for you. Even then you’re intentions may be overridden by zealous hospital staff that seeks to enforce a traditional family unit mentality.
No fucking quarter.
You’re relying on their good graces anyway. If you’re a spouse but in the way, they’re still going to kick you out (“sorry, visiting hours”). Meanwhile if you can tell them your unconscious lover’s allergies, they will not give a damn how serious your relationship is. Believe me, however unique and complicate you think your relationship is, they have seen it many, many times.
And again I say: there are legal benefits to marriage worth fighting for, but hospital visits are about as orthogonal to them as you can get. The entire argument is based on a myth of how hospitals worked in the 1940s.
I really wish Pam Bondi would just climb back into the anal fissure in Governor Rick Scott’s reptilian ass that she originally burst out of.
Never met a pro gun law she didn’t love - argued gay marriage would harm family values while shacking up with a guy after her 2nd divorce - used every bullshit scare tactic in the book to keep medical marijuana out of the hands of sick kids… and yet… and yet… she found the time to NOT investigate Trump U. just days after her reelection campaign received $25,000 from Drumpf himself.
Makes my skin crawl, she does.
An honestly, is that even something that straight people do as well as the gays?
When you say “as well as” do you mean in addition to or with the same degree of skill?
Because to the first I have to say yes but to the second…further study may be needed.
How much choice did she have in the matter? I’m trying to understand the difference between this, and attacking defense attorneys for defending objectively reprehensible people (e.g. Clarence Darrow for Leopold & Loeb). She seems to be emphasizing that she was fighting in court for the will of the voters, which I figure was her job (glad as I am that the SCOTUS subsequently overruled those voters).
I’m not a fan of her.
If she wants to say she was just defending the law in court, okay fine, but I’m pretty sure there’s no rule that says you have to appeal a ruling all the way up the chain until there’s nowhere else to go. You don’t fight to the SCOTUS hoping to lose the whole way there. It’s perfectly acceptable to just accept the lower court’s ruling. You don’t even have to defend it in the first place if you really disagree with it - if the state wanted to pursue the appeal, they could have hired other counsel. Her defense is nothing but using the cover of public opinion to hide her own bigotry.
I was actually more disgusted that, when asked what she’d done in the past to support the LGBT community, she cited a piece of clipart posted to her website after the shooting, followed by nonstop “all lives matter”-style attempts to minimize the fact that LGBT people were the ones who were killed (“we’re talking about human beings” - yes, LGBT ones, you git). It’s such naked opportunism that the FCC should fine her for indecent exposure.
Not to mention that she defended the unconstitutional attempt to drug test all people trying to qualify for government assistance that was struck down by the court.
As Newt Gingrich would say, “marriage is the sacred union between a man and his third wife - the one he cheated with on his 2nd wife who he married after he cheated with her on his first wife who had cancer at the time.”